About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
MSNBCW 14
CNNW 11
FOXNEWS 10
MSNBC 9
CNN 7
FBC 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
WJLA 1
WMAR (ABC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 67
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 67 (some duplicates have been removed)
story. this is backlash on capitol hill. this is criticism of the u.n. ambassador susan rice. it is now heating up as she meets with more republicans and faces more questions. we're going to have a live report up next. [ male announcer ] where do you turn for legal matters? maybe you want to incorporate a business. or protect your family with a will or living trust. and you'd like the help of an attorney. at legalzoom a legal plan attorney is available in most states with every personalized document to answer questions. get started at legalzoom.com today. and now you're protected. i'm going to dream about that steak. i'm going to dream about that tiramisu. what a night, huh? but, um, can the test drive be over now? head back to the dealership? [ male announcer ] it's practically yours. but we still need your signature. volkswagen sign then drive is back. and it's never been easier to get a passat. that's the power of german engineering. get $0 down, $0 due at signing, $0 deposit, and $0 first month's payment on any new volkswagen. visit vwdealer.com today. part of a whole new line of ta
they're troubled by what the united nations ambassador susan rice is telling them. and now the acting cia director has some serious problems as well. president obama pulls out all the stops to keep middle class taxes low, but will congress go along with higher taxes for the rich? plus, a long secret u.s. plan, get this, to explode an atomic bomb on the moon. what were they thinking? i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." >>> today we may be at the tipping point for one of the most important decisions president obama needs to make as he begins his second term. on capitol hill republicans including moderate republicans are sending the president a clear warning, don't nominate susan rice to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state. rice is the current u.s. ambassador to the united nations. she spent a second day meeting with senators trying to explain some of her inaccurate comments she made after the september 11th terrorist attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. cnn's senior congressional correspondent dana bash is joining us now from capitol hill with the ver
. the white house is leaning towards u.s. ambassador to the united nations, susan rice to replace clinton at foggy bottom. rice's confirmation is far from assured giving the questions surrounding her handling of the attacks in benghazi. defense secretary leon panetta made it clear he is ready for retirement. senator john kerry, eyeing the secretary of state position may be asked to replace panetta. adding to the stakes of musical chairs, general allen's confirmation hearing to lead nato has been put on hold. during the campaign president obama called for nation building at home in his second term. he'll need to start by rebuilding his own team. john heilemann, you were a guest on the very first program of this show, there is a lot happening inside the president's inner leadership circle. how much of a problem do you think this is for him? >> first of all, let's not -- let's terry for a moment on -- i have been doing some math, 8,760, that's the number for today, 8,760 hours. >> wow. >> since alex wagner took over that chair and ever since -- >> subjected america to this program. >> and ev
the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. susan rice, who has been under a lot of criticism lately for the things she said after the benghazi attack in libya. and also with the top republican in the homeland security committee, senator susan collins of maine the republican from maine. we think that meeting might break up any minute while we're in this program live and if it does i'll interrupt what i am doing or about to do hopefully to have a few words with the good senator about how the meeting went. if it was anything like yesterday, ooh, didn't go so well with the senators she met with yesterday. so forgive me if i have to interrupt. i want to go back to the whole thing about office pools. i know a lot of you do this. you get in on these lotto winnings with your friends at work and if you actually win one of the big lotto pools with like oo other best friends at work you have what are you going to do? because one person has the ticket. right? sometimes they say oh, wait. that ticket? i bought that separately. i bought that one at home. that was from my private stash not from my pool. oh, well
very critical of u.n. ambassador susan rice. you were critical in tv appearances right after the attack on september 11th. let's listen to that. >> either ambassador rice was deliberately misleading the american people or she showed and demonstrated such a lack of knowledge and sophistication that she shouldn't hold that position anymore. >> now, during friday's hearing, david petraeus, and we'll get to other incidents -- other news with david petraeus later, but david petraeus basically said he knew it was a terrorist attack and that those points were taken out of susan rice's talking points. so do you -- do you feel differently about susan rice now? >> no, first of all, as far as general petraeus, what was clear was that the intelligence community had this right, and they put together talking points, and somewhere after it left the intelligence community, some way in the administration there was language taken out. susan rice, i would hope if she's going to go on national television, is going to rely on more than unclassified talking points. she has -- >> but if the information wasn't
were taken out of susan rice's talking points, so do you -- do you feel differently about susan rice now? >> no, first of all, as far as general petraeus, what was clear was that the intelligence community had this right and they put together talking points and somewhere after it left the intelligence community, some way in the administration there was language taken out. susan rice, i would hope if she's going to go on national television is going to rely on more than unclassified talking points. she has -- >> but if the information wasn't in the talking points, what is she supposed to do. >> well, as u.n. ambassador she had access to all the classified information from the state department. she certainly could have gotten a classified briefing and would have sat dowational security council and known that those talking points had been watered down and could have -- she left a clear impression this was a spontaneous demonstration based on the video and as president obama said, don't blame susan rice because she had nothing to do with benghazi then why did they send her out as the rep
diane feinstein defendeded u.n. ambassador susan rice. >> he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement. that is not my recollection of what he told us september 14th. >> to say that she is unqualified to be secretary of state i think is a mistake. and the way it keeps going, it's almost as if the intent is to assess nate -- >> joining me now is karen finny a political analyst and armstrong williams a conservative columnist and host of the right side with armstrong williams. hello to you both. good to see you. >> hi, alex. >> ladies first with you, karen. you just heard from congressman king. one of his biggest complaints was the white house held back information that this was a terrorist attack claiming this was classified. this is different from the white house's initial defense that they did call it a terrorist attack right away. are they changing their tune? >> well, what i find interesting is the way congressman king and a number of the other republicans have changed their tune from the night before the briefing and oh, what a difference it makes when you actu
president obama would like to see susan rice as his secretary of state? >> well, let's say 50% and -- >> you're putting it at a fair 50. >> 50% and the other 50% susan rice is a proxy for this president. i've said it again and will say it again there has been a witch hunt for every person of color that has served alongside this president. there are really serious things, if that's actually english -- >> only you would know, yes. >> about benghazi that they should be investigating. what is troubling is that four foreign service officers died. what is truly troubling on top of that, is that these senators apparently believe that going on a talk show, even a series of sunday talk shows, makes you responsible for the security of people in the field. they know that's notes the case. they know that susan rice isn't the line manager responsible for security. didn't block the right security for these officials or funding thereof. she's in the part of the cia. she was out doing what they do on sunday talk shows which is talking about a whole range of subjects. i suspect that if you asked john mccain
tragedy. but we have an explanation from petraeus for why susan rice said what she said. that is to say they deliberately obscured what they knew in order to avoid giving away too much to our adversaries. now you could say why did you need to do that? i'm not competent to say what advantage was gained there, but i'm not sure in the alternative what advantage anyone thinks the obama administration was going to get by misleading. the event happened. did anyone think the obama administration was trying to preserve some illusion that terrorists never would hit us as long as obama was president? we have been at war with terrorists 11 years and lost thousands of lives. i don't understand the point that graham is making, and the idea to question why did you put susan rice on the talk shows? administrations make decisions every week about who they will put out to repeat talking points. it doesn't really make much sense to me to be honest. >> to that end, then, amy, you have senator graham, other republicans, john mccain for one, they are calling for a special prosecutor. john harwood brings up
on the deadly attack begin as president obama lashes out at republicans for attacking u.n. ambassador susan rice. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> i knee people don't come to spontaneous demonstrations with rockets and mortars for the president of the united states for two weeks afterwards to deny that was the case, is either a coverup or it is incompetence. >> ahead this hour, one of the republicans calling for a wider probe, new hampshire senator kelly ayotte. and what's going on with the generals? leon panetta orders ethics review. the fbi agent, he's the guy who brought down the millennium bomber. >>> taking out the military leader of hamas and fire from the gaza strip. >> israel will continue to take whatever action is necessary to defend our people. >> we'll talk to michae
and the recent report that it was intelligence officials who changed susan rice's talking points, not the white house. senator john mccain has come out now to issue this statement on the heels of that saying this latest episode another reason why many of rus so frustrated with and suspicious of the actions of this administration when it comes to the benghazi attack. yet again it goes back to the administration. why do you think the president's team has been successful in efforts to stop the controversy the despite this very strong defense of rice that's coming out -- that's coming from the president himself? have they done enough? >> have they done enough to defend susan rice? certainly, i think the president's been very clear about how he feels about susan rice. i think -- and he's been right to defend her. i think some of the attacks that have come from senator mccain and others have been very political in their tone and really not thinking about her job and the talking points she received and also the seriousness of the situation and the timing of when this political fight began, which was r
and whether the president needs to take a bigger role. >>> plus, the u.n. ambassador to the u.s. susan rice, admits the talking points she used after the benghazi attack were wrong. republicans call her answers troubling. >>> and a former mayor spent her life taking on thugs in her town. her fight and her life tonight are now over. let's go out front. >>> good evening, everyone. i'm erin burnett "outfront" tonight, where in the world is president obama? it's been 11 days since he met with congressional leaders on the fiscal cliff. and with impending doom as a lot of people describe it, just 35 days away, key lawmakers say the president hasn't worked hard enough with them to broker a deal. >> rather than sitting down with lawmakers of both parties and working out an agreement, he's back on the campaign trail presumably with the same old talking points that we're all quite familiar with. >> well, now, as far as top democrats are concerned, things haven't been going so well since that november 16th kumbaya meeting at the white house. >> we had a meeting, it went very well. the problem was that
attempt to nominate susan rice as the next secretary of state, describing her as unqualified for the job after she originally characterized the terror attack as a protest gone wrong. she went on the sunday shows including "meet the press" a couple days after the attack and said that. president obama in his news conference yesterday fired back at senators mccain and graham. >> let me say specifically about susan rice, she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> those republican senators were quick to respond to the president. lindsey graham took to twitter writing, "mr. president, don't think for one minute i don't hol
yesterday defending u.n. ambassador susan rice for her response in the days following the terrorist attack in benghazi in what has now become one of the largest conflicts for his administration, at least on the terrorism front. the president's remarks yesterday raise new questions over the conflicting accounts from the white house about the deadly attack. here's why. on september 11th, four americans were killed -- you know that now -- in our consulate in benghazi, including our ambassador. it was a terrorist attack. on the 16th of september, five days later, ambassador rice went on five sunday shows, including fox news sunday, and suggested that the attack was linked to an internet video. >> best assessment we have today is that, in fact, this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack, that what happened initially was it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in cairo as a consequence of the video. megyn: when challenged yesterday on the story that ms. rice told several networks, the president said he, the white house, sent her out there with that explanation. >> as i've s
graham along with the u.n. ambassador susan rice. the three senators emerged from the meeting saying they were honored by the fact that the cia director would meet with them, just three random senators and not in some official capacity testifying before committee on the hill. they appreciated the fact that the administration and the intelligence community was going to such lengths to e swaj their concerns to personally answer their questions about the libya attack in a closed-door meeting with the cia director himself, even though these are just three random senators. the senators said their questions were answered as reasonably could be expected and they were willing to consider the president's nominee for secretary of state. they were throwing hear out those nominations fairly and without prejudice. yeah right. that's not the way it went. here's actually what happened after that meeting today. >> we're not going to consider this nomination until we get answers to our concerns. we're not even close to getting the basic answers. >> we're troubled by many of the answers we got. >> i'm
is is who exexunged the al qaeda terrorism line before it was given to susan rice and she was sent out on those five sunday morning talk shows to say no it was actually a film and a riot gone bad. so as you know there were a couple of senators who say that they have lost faith with susan rice. that she went out and said something misleading. but the president, at his first press conference since being reelected said, please, don't blame her, in fact, he went so far to say she had nothing to do -- knee knew nothing about benghazi. she had nothing to do with benghazi. here he is defending susan rice. >> she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> so. >> okay. then why the heck did you send her out there? she knew nothing about what happened. petraeus was in washington. several other high ranking officials who knew what happened were in washington. if you want us to go after you, then
giving its best initial assessment to dr. susan rice who then gave that assessment to the public on behalf of the white house and then the assessment changed on the part of the cia. i'm not sure what the scandal is but i've heard words like watergate being thrown around which i think goes a step too far and is too political. >> cameras did not catch petraeus arriving this morning even though there were reporters staking out every possible entrance and all we saw was a black car leaving his home early this morning. "the washington post" is reporting also here that the hearings are being held in secret committee rooms used for discussion on national security matters. what do you think this says about how petraeus is viewed on the hill? >> well, i don't know what republicans, whether they're fishing for a scandal or not but i'm fishing for answers. there's no doubt that the public was given misleading and wrong information at the beginning by susan rice. the president was exactly right. she was just reading the talking points she was given by the administration and she was on that s
anxiety. bill: who changed the talking points on benghazi before susan rice hit the talk show circuit and peter king wants answers. he's here live in minutes. >> the talking point were drafted to. they said after it went through the process, which they seemed unclear about, that was taken out. . because your daughter really wants that pink castle thing. and you really don't want to pay more than you have to. only citi price rewind automatically searches for the lowest price. and it finds one, you get refunded the difference. just use your citi card and register your purchase online. have a super sparkly day! ok. [ male announcer ] now all you need is a magic carriage. citi price rewind. buy now. save later. bill: hamas is saying the conflict is all the fault of israel. fan it wants the violence to end it needs to give in to the group's demands. we just spoke to the israeli ambassador and he says the burden is on hamas. >> there is in country on earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders. we are fully supportive of israel's right to defend
susan rice. he does not know who the author of the final version was and these talking points would be uses as the basis for the statements on sunday talk shows on september 16th that this was spontaneous event and linked to the anti-islam video. lawmakers said they wanted to stay very focused on the attack itself and not the former director's personal problems. >> human nature is what it is but the intent going we'll limit the conversation to the events of 9/11 and forward throughout the rest of the, six, eight weeks ensued since the attacks on our consulate. >> reporter: in addition to what's unfolding here on capitol hill fox news separately has confirmed the cia has begun a preliminary investigation into the former director's tenure at the cia. that would include whether any cia assets or materials if you will were used to facilitate this affair or alleged affair with his biographer, paula broadwell, bill. bill: a lot of people look at this on the outside and look at today as a day where you might be able to settle some things but in all honesty how much will be settled after to
meant for the susan rice appearance recentlyally contain the information that there was evidence of al qaeda's elements involved in this attack. but it appears as if those talking points were altered by the white house or somebody close to the white house to remove any reference to al qaeda's involvement in the attacks. we have yet to discover who has changed the talking points to make the president look for favorable and mislead you, by falsely labeling the 9/11 attacks over spontaneous mob over the video. petraeus has no idea what was provided to rice or who was the author of the talking points that she used that, he had no idea she was going on the talk shows until the white house announced it one or two days before. now, the looming question is, in this coverup, who did it? now, earlier, fox's own katherineererridge explained where the talking points went once they left the cia. >> what we are told about the talking points is that it went through an inter-agency review, including the department of justice, the state department, other intelligence agencies and that at the end of the
president obama defended u.n. ambassador susan rice who was criticized for her remarks immediately following this attack. she is reportedly in contention to succeed hillary clinton as our secretary of state, take a listen. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmurch her reputation is outrageous. jenna: senator john cornyn of texas what's elected to be the senate's minority whip, a bit of a promotion if you will. thanks to have you back on the program. >> thank you, jenna, good to be with you. jenna: your reaction on what the president had to say yesterday in. >> i thought it was an overreaction to say the least. congress has a constitutional responsibility under our system of checks and balances to consider any nominations to an executive branch position, like secretary of state. the president knows that. i us
to make sure susan rice is nominated by the president, u.n. ambassador to be secretary of state, is that enough to make sure she's confirmed. >> i would be surprised if he nominated susan rice. although she probably would be confirmed, hearings would be a misery, a place where we would see again and again that she was the mouthpiece for a false story about what happened in benghazi. does the administration want to be held hostage to susan rice's overstatements of the case on tv multiple, multiple times. >> i don't know if you have inside information, everything i hear the president wants her to be the next secretary of state. >> she would be a strong nominee, excellent for this job. and if republicans want to go down the road of benghazi making it a political issue, we saw it play out in the campaign, not much success for them, it would be a strategic error to play politics with this issue and try to block susan rice with it. >> what about john kerry, rumored to replace panetta at the defense department. already calling the swift boat activity, saying he threw away his medals fr
of the deadly attack of a u.s. consulate in libya, including whether ambassador susan rice's so-called talking points were altared the weekend after she gave that announcem of the attack. >> she didn't know anything about the attack in benghazi and the most politically compliant person. i don't know what she knew, but i know that the story she told was misleading. >> the debate on the hill intensified by general david petraeus' testimony friday that they suspected terrorism from the very beginning. >> why do you tell the american public something that is different in meaning? it should be perhaps leave out the details or the sources and then -- >> well, again, though, the details here were al qaeda. >> before you get to the question of what susan rice should or shouldn't have said, i think that we need to know the answer of who changed the talking points and why. >> okay. so let's get to the bottom of this and say good morning to the political power panel. we have susan page, and msnbc analyst karen finney and also a columnist for "the hill" and also the campaign manager for rick sanitorium's
's assessment, susan rice's assessment or your own assessment? >> i think what we first learned in the few hours and days immediately after the attack to today, the intelligence has evolved. certainly there was taking time to gather the information, to analyze it and put forward an assessment. what we do know is that when director petraeus came before us on the 14th, the information that he gave us was not the information that was put out by ambassador rice or by the administration. so it begs the question why wasn't a more complete picture given to the american public more quickly than it was? >> okay. you said that the intelligence has evolved, which means just from a layman's term, you would think that as they gathered information, they learned more than things would change. just from people sitting at home and not for partisans or for people who are on capitol hill, are you actually talk ing to each other about -- getting to the bottom of this or is everyone just talking at each other because i would imagine no administration wants anyone to die on their watch. >> certainly we are talking to
who could be his next secretary of state. >> susan rice is extraordinary. couldn't be prouder of the job she's done. >> you saw who led the clapping there. after that vote of confidence, the person that led that clapping, the outgoing secretary of state hillary clinton also spoke out in rice's defense. >> susan rice has done a great job as our ambassador to the unit nations. of course, this decision about my successor is up to the president. >> still rice had to spend another rough day on capitol hill discussing benghazi with skeptical senate republicans. >> the u.n. ambassador decided to play what was essentially a political role at the height of the contentious presidential election campaign. >> i would just ask the president to step back for a moment and realize that all of us here hold the secretary of state to a very different standard than most cabinet members. >> one rice ally, senator joe lieberman tried to take the focus off of rice this morning. >> i hope we can focus on what i think are the more important parts of our investigation which is what did our government k
of this puzzle are interrelated. john mccain also said he will do everything he can to stop susan rice from being confirmed as secretary of state. does this present a problem? do you think they will go forward with it? she was widely considered to be the top possibility? >> it's one of the bigger early fights that obama can face but it could take a step back, not just looking at what happened in benghazi but more broadly at all of libya. what we did going in there. we know rice was one of the major driving forces who said we need to go and drive out gadhafi. if some of the nation building starts to turn ugly over the next year which tends to happen how does that reflect on susan rice's push to get us in there. that's one issue that could come up. >> is this a fight the white house wants to have, major? is john kerry looking like the better candidate now? >> well, that's for the administration to decide and they're getting early signals from republicans that if the president wants to go down this road and nominate ambassador rice, that it's going to be a fight and it's going to be game on and it w
to something that was just asked. about susan rice. if she was to go before a confirmation hearing -- >> for you i'll break the hypothetical rule. >> nobody 0 else. >> thank you. if she were to go before a senate confirmation hearing could she answer questions with a simple yes? are questions answerable? >> i'm not sure what you're asking, april. again, i'm not going to speculate about personnel matters and who will or will not be participating in nomination hearings. you know, i can tell you that the president believes that ambassador rice has done an excellent job, as the united states ambassador to the united nations, and i believe that -- and i know that he believes that everyone here working for him has been transparent and in the way that we've tried to answer questions about what happened in benghazi and going back to briefings that we had again and again, that the information that we provided was based on the available assessments at the time, and as those assessments evolved and became more detailed and clear we provided additional information, and that was certainly true
's conference. republicans say u.n. ambassador susan rice they believe is unfit for promotion. that growing debate straight ahead. gregg: and the president is meeting with business execs at the white house today. he says the middle class is his top priority but, will the president's policies allow those ceo's to hire new employees? martha: and the mystery of the massive home explosion in indiana now deepening as another house explodes in a completely different neighborhood. >> the ones that happened in indianapolis, those had heavy fire along with the explosions. this type here, it's undetermined what caused it because there was no fire with this explosion. it's that time of year. time for campbell's green bean casserole. you'll find the recipe at campbellskitchen.com. ♪ campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. no one says th anymore, mom. [ woman ] raise the roof! ah? raise the roof! [ male announcer ] it's our biggest toy rollback of the year. find hundreds of rollbacks on the season's hottest toys in stores now, from america's gift headquarters, walmart. martha: well, police in hende
again. >> hey, joe. >> you know, susan rice, our u.n. ambassador, has been taking a lot of heat. john mccain, lindsey graham going after her for repeating what the president says was the intel that was available at the time. you're on the committee. can you tell us, was susan rice, from what you know, just repeating what was being told to everybody in washington at the time on what had happened in benghazi? >> well, here's what i think, joe. i think without question, i mean, you know, you've got guys storming a consulate with ak-47s, with rpgs and firing mortars. they knew immediately this was a terrorist attack. there wasn't any question about that. and why the white house didn't come out and say that immediately, i don't know. they tried to soften it somewhat with regard to it was a spontaneous action that stemmed from a protest. there was a question about whether protesters were there. and five days later, susan rice goes on tv and says that not only was it a protest, but it apparently stemmed from this trailer or this movie that had been shown. and very honestly by that point in time
out the term al-qaeda and inserted extremist in the talking points that went to eventually susan rice and told americans? who edited those talking points? that was the question given to david petraeus on friday, no answer there. >> clayton: we thought we'd get it, so friday we didn't get it. thought maybe saturday, we didn't get it. sunday, no answer, but new insight into exactly some of the editing process done with the talking points and a statement from the white house deputy national security advisor, ben rose, the only edit made by the white house and state department was to change the word consulate to the word diplomatic facility. those are two words. since the facility in benghazi was not formally a consulate. we were presented with points, and the only edit made by the white house was the factual edit how to refer to the facility. no mention though of removing al-qaeda and putting in the term extremist. so still we have a gray area, something in between the white house and the intelligence community somebody edited it. >> so petraeus testified on friday, al-qaeda was a part o
.s. -- united nations ambassador susan rice for the benghazi response. here is what the president said. >> as i've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> okay. so it took senator john mccain about an hour to make it to the s senate floor to offer a response. >> that statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks that we are picking on people, he really does not have any idea of how serious this issue is. >> seems like the testosterone-fueled rhetoric over benghazi is sort of getting out of control. former cia operative bob behr joins us this morning. good morning, bob. >> good morning. >> i want to make it clear to our viewers what lawmakers want to figure out. there are three separate hearings about to take place today. this is what they're trying to figure out. one, why didn't the united states increase security in libya? two, did the obama administration
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 67 (some duplicates have been removed)